The Guardian is proposing to save the narrative of climate change by launching a new narrative! That Jones, Mann and the CRU have a bunker and a siege mentality, because they were viciously attacked by evil deniers, who are waging a war against them paid for by ruthless, dirty energy corporations.

This illustrates the mindset of the Left to a t: my goal it so ethical (saving the planet), that it justifies any unethical means. Yes, peer reviews should have been done and yes, information under the Freedom of Information Act should have been supplied (reframed as "a PR disaster"), but hey, their job's so critical that it's no wonder such niceties were dispensed with for the moment!

Help out The Guardian saving climate change! It's important, 'cause a lot of money and ideology is caught up in this scam ... Granted, Climategate should never have happened! But not to worry, you too can now become a peer (granted you would wish to do so), helping The Guardian reviewing the leaked CRU documents. That at least creates the perception of belated orthodoxy.

Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access. In a unique experiment, The Guardian has published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

As well as including new information about the emails, we will allow web users to annotate the manuscript to help us in our aim of creating the definitive account of the controversy. This is an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth. (...) The annotations - and the real name of the commenter - will be added to the manuscript, initially in private. The most insightful comments will then be added to a public version of the manuscript. We hope the process will be a form of peer review. If you have a contribution to make, please email climate.emails@guardian.co.uk. The anonymous commenting facility under each article will also be switched on so that anyone can contribute to the debate. (...) >>>

In the Netherlands meanwhile the issue is starting to make waves. The right-wing liberal party VVD in opposition is demanding a clarification from the Prime Minister. It turns out the delegation for COP15 (Hopenhagen) consisted of 110 persons: 109 climate loyalists and 1 sceptic. Among the loyalists, members of Greenpeace and other environmental activists. And Shock! Since the arbiter of postmodern politics is consensus, these activists were allowed to contribute to the drafts of the political agreement (yes, we've seen these drafts drifting by at the time, since sanitized from cyberspace (belated New Year's resolution: improve screenshot awareness)).

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. >>>